D&D 4E Rename the races in 4E? Why halflings and not hobbits? Dwur not dwarf...

[reanjr]

This is a question for the ages, but probably a modern one too: If D&D is to move to a stance of D&Disms, we should take a look at the races. We have halflings but not hobbits, how about the other races:

From the maker:
Dwur = dwarf
Olve = Elf
Drow = Dark elf

Is this a sacred cow? Would it make people's eyeballs fall out of their heads?

jh

The only reason halflings are called halflings and not hobbits is because of fear of (potential or actual) intellectual property complaints from the Tolkien estate. Not to mention, "halflings" is what they were called by Men in Tolkien (or Perrianath by Elves). This is analogous to Elves calling themselves Quendi or the Eldar, but being called Elves by Man.

And there are no IP concerns for Elves and Dwarves because they are mythological creatures with a long documented history that stems back before copyright. The earliest mention of Hobbits of within the last 150 years and it could probably be argued is primarily defined in its fantastical sense by one man.

No, renaming them would be silly. If you make an Elf an Elf, but call it a Foo, people will just think, "oh, so you mean Foos are just what we call Elves?" If it's an Elf, call it an Elf.

 

[reanjr]

Uh, that's the entire point of his question. D&D calls it "mithral", with an a, even though we all know it's really mithril, with an i. I can only assume that's for trademark reasons.

Or perhaps, it was changed to how most people were going to pronounce it anyway. No reason to confuse things because Tolkien named it according to Sindarin language rules.

 

[reanjr]

I kicked myself for not covering every possible contingency in my last post. This is the internet, after all.

What I mean is that, while the names elf, gnome, and dwarf are all invented by humans to describe imaginary creatures in folklore, you could believe that, in your setting, those creatures invented those names for themselves, cliche that races refer to themselves with more exquisite terms aside. Following that concept, halflings are an anomaly. Why aren't elves called "earlings," or dwarves "beardlings?" Having others refer to a race with a colloquialism is fine, but that race should be presented more formally initially, with the name from their own tongue that they apply to themselves.

I'm fairly certain I'm going to start referring to dwarves as beardlings though.

Tolkien already thought this out very well and gave us a template to work from. In a fictional, fantastical setting, no one is speaking English. So the content of that world is "translated" for our convenience. There is no more reason to refer to an Elf in the PH as "Quendi" (or any other cultural term) as there is to refer to the generic world as "Arda". They both try to imply a language and culture that shouldn't be present. For English speakers it is best to simply map those "foreign" words and names to something that is easily accesible in English.

 

[reanjr]

In my 4th Ed. setting, I'll probably be renaming "halflings" as "hobbits." It's always annoyed me slightly that halflings, unlike the other races, have a name based on the human language rather than their own. I'm not suggesting this change be inflicted upon other players, but I think it makes my setting's flavor that much more consistent. Plus, unlike some of the more elaborate alternative names suggested in this thread, I think "hobbit" is ubiquitous enough for the players to comfortably grasp and use.

In Tolkien, female Hobbits are primarily named after flowers. Given that our examplar Hobbits were linguistically inclined, it may be that Hobbits could take their native name (that means something) and translate it into the tongue of those around them. Then you could have both scenarios: native names, and names that match with the humans (or others) around them.

 

[Gentlegamer]

As has been noted, the term "hobbit" is tradmarked by the Tolkien Estate, though I wonder what will happen to the term when the book, "The Hobbit," enters the public domain.

If the design premise is to go towards "D&Disms" for names, I have no problem using the Greyhawk demihuman names.

For those saying that is would be silly to rename an "elf" anything other than "elf," remember: elfs (proper real English spelling) don't exist, so attaching a made up name to a made up creature is in no way silly. It may be you don't like the suggested names, but that is different matter. The D&D elf (and the other demihumans) is almost wholly a D&Dism in itself, so renaming ought to present no real conceptual problem.

 

[reanjr]

As has been noted, the term "hobbit" is tradmarked by the Tolkien Estate, though I wonder what will happen to the term when the book, "The Hobbit," enters the public domain.

Except that it probably never will in America. Every time copyright sunset comes up in America big corporations (Disney, primarily) lobby to have it extended. Disney is adament that Mickey Mouse not become public domain. And he predates the Bagginses by at least a few years.

 

[Ranger REG]

As has been noted, the term "hobbit" is tradmarked by the Tolkien Estate, though I wonder what will happen to the term when the book, "The Hobbit," enters the public domain.

The term (along with the rest of the title, The Hobbits: There and Back Again) can still be used to reference to the body of work when it enters PD. But used outside of the body of work may be considered trademark infringement.

 

[Malhost Zormaeril]

Or perhaps, it was changed to how most people were going to pronounce it anyway. No reason to confuse things because Tolkien named it according to Sindarin language rules.

True, except then why not call it Greyglitter? This way everyone should know how to pronounce it (to the extent that people can know how any word is pronounced in English, anyway: one never has more than 80% confidence) and the etymology is plain.

If you prefer to import the word, however, you really should import the pronunciation. even if one has to write it "mythreel", since that's how most languages adapt foreign words to them: keep the sound as close as you can, and change the orthography to match.

 

[Jhaelen]

If you prefer to import the word, however, you really should import the pronunciation. even if one has to write it "mythreel", since that's how most languages adapt foreign words to them: keep the sound as close as you can, and change the orthography to match.

That's true, I didn't think of that.

In fact that's been one major aspect in the last revision of our (German) language: The spelling for foreign words was officially changed. Not a change that was generally well received by the populace.
E.g. words with Greek origins no longer use 'ph' but 'f', as in dolphin -> dolfin (German: Delphin -> Delfin).

 

[Nifft]

In fact that's been one major aspect in the last revision of our (German) language: The spelling for foreign words was officially changed. Not a change that was generally well received by the populace.
E.g. words with Greek origins no longer use 'ph' but 'f', as in dolphin -> dolfin (German: Delphin -> Delfin).

On the one hand, that's nice for phonetic consistency, but on the other hand, it does a LOT to obscure the etymology. IMHO, meaning is harder and more important than pronunciation.

English would be extra annoying if homophones were also spelled the same.

Hmm, -- N